by Brian Mark Weber: Fresh off another major policy failure in the liar-nObamaCare repeal effort, President Donald Trump and Republicans are giving their increasingly hopeless and skeptical supporters yet another promise to bring about real change. This time it’s an effort to overhaul the tax code. As with just about any Republican initiative these days, the shiny package often ends up like an ugly sweater on Christmas morning: Sure, it’s better than nothing at all, but it’s not the new bike you thought you were getting. And once Americans find out what’s in the new tax plan, some may wish they had left the package unopened.
Phillip Klein explains, “More than eight months into the term of President Trump, Republicans still haven’t released a detailed tax plan. Instead, what they released on Wednesday was yet another outline. On the surface, the plan promises tax relief to families, but without more information, it’s impossible to say whether that’s true. Under some assumptions, many upper middle-class families could be looking at a tax increase.”
The basic proposed changes to the tax system would benefit most people, if enacted as planned. For example, the current standard deduction of $6,000 for singles would double to $12,000, and the standard deduction for married couples would double from $12,000 to $24,000. Additionally, as Fox News reports, “The plan also collapses the number of personal tax brackets from seven to three. By simplifying the system, most Americans would be able to file their taxes on a postcard-sized document, a concept Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin touted this past spring.”
In addition to the expanded standard deductions and lower corporate tax rates, some of the other features of the plan that fiscal conservatives are likely to support (but which Democrats and even some Republicans will fight) include making it easier for multinational companies to bring money into the United States as well as eliminating the alternative minimum tax and abolishing the much-hated estate tax (also known as the death tax). The mortgage deduction, child tax credit and earned income credit will likely remain, although the details are yet to be hammered out in committee, and the dramatic rise in the standard deduction would functionally eliminate them for most Americans. Part of the plan that will be hard to get through is removing deductions for state and local taxes, although this will primarily affect residents in high-tax blue states.
President Trump marketed his tax plan in a formal unveiling in which he stated, “We’re doing everything we can to reduce the tax burden on you and your family. By eliminating tax breaks and loopholes, we will ensure that the benefits are focused on the middle class, the working men and women, not the highest-income earners.”
On the surface, the plan sounds great, but the final details are yet to be determined. And how this will look at the end of the process could affect people’s lives significantly. For example, while reducing the number of tax brackets from seven to three is a good step, where the lines fall will necessarily determine whether someone pays less or more in federal taxes.
The Wall Street Journal reports, “The most important news is that the plan would make U.S. businesses more competitive around the globe. The corporate rate will fall to 20% from 35%, which is the highest in the developed world. This is not as low as President Trump’s floated 15% or Ireland’s 12.5% but would bring the U.S. below the industrialized-world’s 22.5% average. This would improve U.S. corporate tax competitiveness from a depressing 35th out of 35 nations in the Tax Foundation’s annual index, which is below even France.”
But what about the broader impact on the country? Will the proposed tax plan really lead to job growth and economic expansion? History says yes. Take a look at the 20-year expansion thanks to President Ronald Reagan. Moreover, The Heritage Foundation reports that Reagan’s tax cuts resulted in a doubling of federal revenues “from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.”
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, says this tax plan could yield 4% growth.
Lest anyone think this plan is being taken directly out of Reagan’s playbook, however, there are some aspects of it that are more populist than conservative. For example, the wealthiest Americans may end up paying higher taxes to offset the breaks for lower- and middle-class taxpayers. And since President Trump’s plan may do away with some itemized deductions, some middle-class taxpayers may have a higher tax bill next time around. Yet, despite some misgivings, the House Freedom Caucus has endorsed the tax plan.
Now that the plan’s basic framework is becoming clearer, the real battle begins as the president tries to gather enough votes in his own party while attracting what may be needed Democrat support. And he has to do this without caving to the other side. If President Trump starts referring to senators clown-Schumer and Pulosi as “clown-Chuck and Nancy” during the tax debate, you know we’re in trouble.
Chris Stirewalt of Fox News writes, “As Trump trudges through this battlefield, clown-Schumer and Pulosi will be waving from afar, constantly offering Trump the hope of a grand bargain on taxes. As the legislation grinds through committees and faces various Democratic delays, that party’s leaders will be sure to always encourage Trump to keep hope alive.”
Some of Trump’s supporters may be leery of any mention that the president might have to negotiate with Democrats to bring about major changes to the tax code, but as long as the majority in the Republican Senate is razor thin, and as long as the likes of RINO-Susan Collins and RINO-John McCain are waiting to torpedo anything that has Trump’s name on it, the fact is that Democrats will put their fingerprints on whatever comes out of this process. Already, Democrats are rolling out the clichés about how Trump’s tax plan will benefit the rich while soaking the middle class and the working poor. And, of course, they’re asking how the government can afford to “pay” for the tax cuts. Strangely, though, these same Democrats never ask how we’re going to pay for higher taxes when they’re in power.
Whatever emerges from Congress and lands on the president’s desk (assuming that a bill ever gets there), the final version will likely be far different from that which President Trump unveiled Wednesday in Indiana. And based on the fact that we have no border wall, and no repeal of liar-nObamaCare, the odds of us seeing any tax benefits by next April seem minimal. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51576
Team owners seem ambivalent about what to do. They have their rules for the teams – and heaven knows, they enforced them stringently, until now. But since so many players are taking things in their own hands and spitting in the face of Uncle Sam with their insults to the flag, the national anthem and our country, too many owners are backing off and seemingly siding with them.
Actually, even one franchise owner is “too many.” It shouldn’t happen at all.
Why does it?
Is it because the players are such well-paid employees? Is it because, if the teams lost them, franchises would suffer financially and lose their viability?
Warriors coach Steve Kerr said it clearly: “We’re just playing basketball. It’s a business.” He’s got that right.
Is it because the owners subtly agree with the slaps at patriotism, this country, the flag –and, oh yes, President Donald Trump?
Or – pardon me for being crass – is it because so many of the players who are dissenting are black men who claim their dispute is with the racially charged atmosphere in the country especially involving the police, and the owners are afraid if they don’t support those players, they’ll be accused of “racism”?
Gee, that couldn’t be it, could it?
Unfortunately, the bottom line of all of this is race.
And we thought Jackie Robinson put an end to that.
It appears that no matter what this country does, it will never be enough to satisfy the race-baiters.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution don’t satisfy them. The Civil War doesn’t satisfy them. The Civil Rights Act doesn’t satisfy them. Affirmative-action, social programs, welfare and all the other nods to race don’t satisfy them.
Consider Dr. Carol J. Baker, a pediatric infectious disease professor at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. Speaking to a medical group in Atlanta, she complained that minorities tend to get more inoculations than whites. She said she had the solution: “Let’s just get rid of all the whites in the United States.”
You may laugh. Maybe she considered it a joke. But no one is laughing.
Do you think people would be laughing if she had said, “Let’s get rid of all the blacks in the country”? I doubt it, and it would have made national headlines.
But when it’s said about white people, it’s scarcely noticed.
It isn’t funny, and the truth is that there are those who would support that point of view about whites.
Look at the attitude today toward white police. To hear the rhetoric, you would think white cops are out in force to destroy all blacks and other minorities.
The Black Lives Matter group certainly supports violence against police and whites in general. Look at the civil uprisings we’ve seen recently; I have no doubt it will get worse before it gets better because people are so politically correct that they’re afraid to speak out and be accused of racism.
President Trump fueled that fire with his profanity about firing those who “take a knee” for the national anthem at ball games.
Sorry gang, I agree with him. If you’re the boss of the team, you have a right to have standards for their behavior while in uniform, and paying patriotic attention during the national anthem seems like a minimal requirement.
If they won’t do that – don’t take a knee, take a hike.
Donald Trump calling them SOBs is mild compared to the insults hurled at the president, his wife and family, to say nothing of his administration.
To have people call Colin Kaepernick “the leader of a social-equality movement” is ludicrous on the face of it. He is a mediocre player with an attitude, fed by the color of his skin and the size of his hair.
No doubt he thought he could get a rise out of people and hide behind his excuse that it’s an effort to draw attention to police brutality.
Other players joined the bandwagon because they knew people would be afraid to call this what it is – a racist attack on this country because they think it’s too white and want it changed.
The one part of this scenario they forgot – or ignored – was the reaction of the fans. It was assumed the fans would support what they did because it was benign and non-violent and they would support those poor guys who were being abused by the system.
Hah! The fans want games played and won. They know those players – regardless of color – get paid millions and have the perks to go with it all. Fans pay exorbitant prices for tickets, refreshments and parking to see those games. It’s a venue they want free of politics of any stripe.
If the fans tune out of media coverage – and ratings are already down – and stop going to the games, the players will soon be out of a job.
They may think they’re untouchable, but they’re most vulnerable in the pocketbook, as are the franchise owners
No fans? No teams. It all comes down to money.
Colin Kaepernick can afford to be the biggest mouth in the game. What is he risking? No one picked up his contract.
It’s sad to see so many well-employed people risk their careers for one silly, selfish, unemployed, skinny guy with big hair.
Comments